G.R. No. L-4179; May 30, 1951
CRISANTO DE BORJA, in his capacity as administrator of the Intestate estate of Marcelo de Borja, petitioner, vs. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, MARCELA, SATURNINA, JUAN, EUFRASIA, JACOBA and OLIMPIA, all surnamed DE BORJA, respondents.

FACTS

The intestate estate proceedings for Marcelo de Borja have been pending for about thirty years. A project of partition, approved in February 1940 and now final, allotted certain properties to the estate of Quintin de Borja (a deceased son of Marcelo), with the condition that before delivery, the administrator of Quintin’s estate must execute a document transferring to Marcelo’s estate all rights Quintin had in a specific Nueva Ecija civil case (Quintin de Borja vs. Feliciana Mariano). The respondents are Quintin’s children and sole heirs. On July 6, 1950, Marcela de Borja Vda. de Torres, as special administratrix of Quintin’s estate, executed a “Cession of Rights” transferring those rights to Marcelo’s estate. The respondent judge then issued an order directing Crisanto de Borja, as administrator of Marcelo’s estate, to deliver the properties assigned to Quintin’s heirs (the respondents) within five days. Crisanto de Borja petitioned for certiorari to review an order of execution of that directive, contesting its soundness and the reasons for its immediate execution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the order of execution directing the delivery of properties to the respondents based on the “Cession of Rights,” despite objections to its sufficiency and form.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The grounds for opposing the execution were found trivial or unmeritorious. The “Cession of Rights” substantially complied with the condition in the project of partition, as its description of the properties (rights in the specified civil case) matched the partition’s terms, and the exact identity of the properties could be ascertained from the court records. Any defects in the deed were not fundamental and could be easily cured, and the respondents expressed willingness to rectify them. The bond posted by the respondents provided adequate protection for Marcelo’s estate. The deviation of ordering delivery directly to Quintin’s heirs (the respondents) instead of to his estate’s administrator was justified as they were the sole declared heirs and one was the administratrix, posing no detriment to the petitioner. The objection regarding potential inheritance tax evasion was not the petitioner’s concern and would not subject him to criminal liability for obeying a court order. The reasons for immediate execution were sound: the proceedings had been pending for nearly 29 years, it was unjust to withhold the heirs’ inheritance while others had received theirs, and the properties in question were the only ones left in the administrator’s hands, burdening Quintin’s children with all administration expenses. The respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction or abuse his discretion but made a wise and commendable decision to expedite the estate settlement. Costs were imposed on the petitioner personally, not chargeable to the estate.